Neeraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Confidential, Lko and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 511 of 2025

Neeraj

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And Confidential, Lko And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sudhanshu S. Tripathi, Anuj Dayal, Raghav Bansal, Ritwika Tripathi, Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Abhinav Srivastava

¶7

Court No. - 11

¶8

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Badrul Hasan, learned AGA for the State and Ms. Saumya Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Abhinav Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

¶10

By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 21.12.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No. 2653 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.233 of 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506, 34 IPC, P.S.-Raunahi, District-Ayodhya.

¶11

It is stated that co-accused namely Vishnu and Suraj Gaud, having general role, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order(s) dated 22.09.2025 and 19.09.2025 passed in CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 483 of 2025 (Vishnu vs. State of U.P. And Another) and CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3094 of 2024 (Suraj Gaud vs. State of U.P. And Another) and this fact has not been disputed by the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶12

Thus, taking note of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, including that the appellant having no criminal history is in jail since 09.05.2024, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶13

CRLA No. 511 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

Learned A.G.A. and Ms. Saumya Singh, learned counsel for the for the opposite party No.2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant's counsel. They could not dispute the fact that the co-accused namely Vishnu and Suraj Gaud have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. However, it is stated that the weapon involved in the crime was recovered on pointing out of the appellant and as such involvement of the appellant in the crime cannot be ruled out.

¶16

In response, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the weapon, if any, recovered on pointing out of the appellant is subject to the evidence adduced by the parties concerned before the trial Court and at this stage of bail, the same is not liable to be considered. However, the fact remains that general allegations were levelled in the FIR against all the accused persons and some of them have already been enlarged on bail.

¶17

Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., post-mortem report as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation and bail order(s).

¶18

Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances, including that similarly situated co-accused namely Vishnu and Suraj Gaud have already been enlarged on bail by this Court as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶19

The impugned order dated 21.12.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No. 2653 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.233 of 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506, 34 IPC, P.S.-Raunahi, District-Ayodhya, is hereby set aside.

¶20

Let appellant - Neeraj be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶21

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶22

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶23

CRLA No. 511 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶26

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶27

(v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶28

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶29

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶30

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶31

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶32

September 24, 2025 Vinay/-

¶33

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶34

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Neeraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Confidential, Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Confidential, Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vivek Mishra @ Vivek Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ghanshyam Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vikas Sahu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shiv Kumar Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Pravesh Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others